CENTRALISATION OF SERVICES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21531, 31 December 1931, Page 3

CENTRALISATION OF SERVICES

EVILS OF BUREAUCRATIC GOVERNMENT The Sydney Morning Herald, reviewing a new work, “Bureaucracy Triumphant by Mr C. K. Allen, a former professor of jurisprudence at Oxford, and now Oxford secretary to the Rhodes Trust, and referring to the fact that it is an acute analysis of a tendency which has caused concern in many thoughtful minds, observes: “ This is the disposition of Parliament to shirk its legislative responsibilities, and clothe the public service with wide powers, which lend themselves to abuse. Tho English boast that they have nothing corresponding to the French Droit administratif.’ But the system they tolerate is even more arbitrary in its operation. Very often Parliament passes a measure authorising the Minister, which in Practice generally means a departmental onicial, to make regulations ihe draft regulations lie on the table or the House for a specified period before they have the force of law. However, this expedient is in the majority of cases an empty formality; often they are not subjected to even a perfunctory examination. The burden of testing their validity by the doctrine of ultra vires is cast upon the courts —at the cost of the private litigant or the taxpayer, or both. “ It is also common for Parliament to invest departmental officials with semijudicial functions, and to provide that no appeal against their decisions shall lie. The effect of this is to place departmental orders, however inequitable or unreasonable, outside the scrutiny of the courts. Even where tho right of appeal is given, the aggrieved person may, out of solicitude for his own pocket, refrain trom exercising it. A department hates to be shown to have been in the wrong and to have a precedent established against itself. To avoid this it will fight all along the line, even to the House of Lords. Occasionally. however, where an appeal exists, an obstinate or affluent party accepts the challenge, and it sometimes happens that the judicial comment on the methods ot the department are scathing iu the extreme, Professor Allen quotes some ot these cases, which prove to what injustices bureaucratic control may mad. Ol course, when the scales are loaded the temptation to take points, and even to indulge in sharp practice, is strong. Professor Allen notes that some men who are the soul of honour and fair dealing in their private capacity may not hesitate, out of loyalty to their department, to descend to very questionable tactics. Although they are public servants, they deem their duty to be to their department, and are, in fact, masters ot the public.”